This thread has peacefully ended.  
Thank you.

Evolution is not moral. It’s also not wrong to fail to pass down your genes. In time, every species will go extinct. Generally speaking, the more fit ones will actually go extinct faster than the less fit ones. That’s why large specialists like leaf-eating colobus monkeys are vanishing (the Miss Waldron’s Colobus just went extinct less than a decade ago), while small, omnivorous squirrel monkeys are plentiful. And why of the countless species of highly unique ammonites in the fossil record, none are still around, while their barely evolved cousin the chambered nautilus is still with us. Why rats are all over the world, while chinchillas were confined to the high Andes (and are probably extinct there, remaining only in human care as pets.)
 
From a moral standpoint, you could even argue that trying to suppress your genetic tendencies is wrong. If you would pass down genes that are possibly detrimental to the survival of your progeny in the near-long-term (like a tendency towards homosexuality), then it’s arguable that you should in fact express those tendencies to the fullest. Let evolution judge your genes now. Moreover, the most moral choice by that logic is to encourage everyone to just be whoever they feel they should be. That way, if someone’s gay tendencies are somehow beneficial, that person will pass them down (or not pass them down) based upon their own merits. Indeed, even a directly “maladaptive” trait like infertility or a mental disinclination to reproduce should be expressed and tested in the evolutionary crucible immediately.
 
However, you could also argue that the ability to deceive about what your true genetics are is itself a higly adaptive trait. By that logic, suppressing your homosexuality in order to procreate is the “correct” choice, despite the fact that it will result in a number of (probably) less fit children with a tendency towards homosexuality. And furthermore, as long as those children can suppress their homosexuality long enough to have some offspring, and pass on the ability to deceive as well as gayness, that gayness is not itself maladaptive. And you could go back and forth between those mutually contradictory propositions ad infitum. Basically, the judge of evolutionary fitness for today’s gene isn’t one generation of offspring judged on one trait. It’s thousands of generations judged over time based on their average. And the judge who will know what did and didn’t work out 100,000 years from now hasn’t even been born yet.
 
But all that avoids the most important point: evolution simply isn’t even on the same axis as morality. It’s a mathematical description of how we got from where life used to be, to where life is now. It is simply a description of the past. (And probably where life as it exists now is going to wind up in the future, but we don’t know that yet.) There is no mandate to continue evolution. There is absolutely zero imperitive to either encourage or resist the pull of evolution. In the grand scheme of things, it makes no difference whether someone’s gay genes die off with this generation because they don’t reproduce, or they die off in ten generations because of generally lower reproductive success, or they die off in a thousand generations because an asteroid impact favors animals much smaller than humans.

@Background Pony  
They would rather be viewed as it being an inherent trait rather than a fetish for a few reasons. One reason is that they want to be able to identify themselves with racial-based rights movements. Another is that fetishes aren’t usually thought of as seriously as inborn traits (in other words, if it’s inborn, it’s considered to be a more ‘legitimate’ behavior).

@Justy  
The thing is, there’s no evidence to suggest correlation between sexuality and other genetic advantages e.g. strength. The portion of the population that breeds will still look a lot like the population as a whole, and while there may be some highly advantageous genetic stock owned by those who don’t reproduce, they still have plenty of other ways to contribute to the species.
 
But we appear to be arguing over something where we don’t actually disagree on the basics. I object to your use of the word “wrong”, since it brings in all sorts of moral judgement by association, and I feel you’re being callous about a person’s worth, but I agree with the spirit of your original post.

@Thunderplunk
 
I already said I didn’t care about the moral implications of the word.  
I mean wrong, as in keeping the organism from functioning as intended.  
And no, natural selection doesn’t necessarily care about the species as a whole, but the ability to reproduct is as important a factor in natural selection as the ability to survive is. Extremely capable specimens that just happen to be borderline sterile will be hard pressed not to get steamrolled by a batch of sickly, weak cripples that won’t survive a year into their adulthood but can impregnate a female by as much as looking at her.

@Justy  
We appear to be operating under multiple definitions of the word “wrong”. Do you mean “wrong” as in “immoral”, or are you going more for a sort of not-as-it-was-intended sort of thing? I mean, at the moment it sounds as though you’re measuring the worth of things purely by reproductive potential. Besides, natural selection doesn’t care about the species. It’s much more of an individual competition, as far as I’m aware.

Homosexuality is a fetish like any other, I don’t understand why people think you’re born with it.

me 2 dum dum 2 talk abot social issues or whatevs, me like da dum pony wif da joke haha it maeks me laff

@GargantuanBass
 
I was only trying to point out that you don’t have to be a Christian redneck to call homosexuality “wrong”. A biologist can do that any day in perfectly good conscience because homosexuality is simply a complex biological malfunction, and no amount of misguided post-modern rage will change that simple fact.

>Homosexuality argument on Derpibooru
 
ISFHYGDDT

@Thunderplunk
 
From evolutionary viewpoint, infertility is the epitome of “wrong”.  
Any mutation resulting in infertility of its carrier is a dead end.

@Justy  
And if everyone were infertile, we’d die out just as quickly. Would you describe infertility as “wrong”?

@Justy
 
if that’s the case then GOOD
 
we are already overpopulated

@Background Pony
 
Well, yes, and?
 
To put it very simple, you can usually determine the “right” and “wrong”, or more precisely “beneficial”, “neutral” and “detrimental” for any evolutionary deviation from the norm just by asking this: if all future generations were born with this deviation, how would it affect the survival of the species in its current environment?
 
To be unbiased, let’s say the norm is asexual reproduction, and we have two deviations from that norm that encompass two separate genders and sexual reproduction, with only one relatively small difference. In the first case, the members of opposite gender are being attracted to each other, in the second case the members of the same gender are being attracted to each other. Logically, the group where the individuals are naturally compelled to sexually reproduce (the former) would be always better off than the one where every individual has to make a conscious decision to either go against their own urges and mate with the opposite gender for the “greater good”, or resort to artificial insemination, which is much more inconvenient, far from reliable or perfect and requires so much advanced equipment and specialized personnel that it’s just not plausible for it to be the main method of reproduction, not for today’s mankind anyway (honestly, at any point in the history of mankind, a hypothetical switch to homosexuality would do things to demography that the Plague, both World Wars, Holocaust and Spanish Flu combined could never even dream of, even if people later miraculously came to universally accept that they have to fuck something they find repulsive in order to survive as a species, which is a funny thing to contemplate, given the fact humanity never agrees on anything.)
 
Maybe for a species that is no longer able to reproduce naturally, the question of sexuality would be moot. But as it is, any significant deviation from the plain old, run-of-the-mill, generic, boring heterosexuality is “wrong”.

@Blissey1  
There are homosexual animals living in the wild and Zoos and i’m quite sure they had no “homosexual indoctrination” before they went all gay.
 
I’d say it’s genetic with some chance of being aquired.

@Justy  
Scientists discovered that stem cells can make a male produce eggs. Women can donate their placenta to scientists for stem cell research, and it’s an obvious solution to the controversial research.

@Blissey1
 
Why, yes, the general consensus is that homosexuality is at least in part genetic and determined in-utero. There are environmental and hormonal factors, too.
 
@nyxabuse
 
How is “born wrong” a moral judgement?  
A kid with Down’s has been “born wrong”, admittedly a whole fuckload more wrong, but it’s got nothing to do with morality whatsoever.  
A guy with six fingers has been “born wrong”, hell, an albino has.

@Justy  
‘wrong’ is a moral judgement, nothing to do with evolution

@Justy  
There’s also arguments to be made regarding whether or not you have to be ‘born’ gay to be gay, but yeah. :I

@Justy  
You know you’re implying that homosexuality is genetic, right?

Technically speaking, they have been born wrong. Homosexuality means the individual is not compelled to reproduce. That’s a deviation counter-productive to the preservation of the species. Not nearly as bad as sterility, because they’re still physically capable of reproduction, but “wrong” evolution-wise, nonetheless.
 
Should human society be above judging people and looking down on them because of their sexual preference?  
Absolutely, this isn’t the Middle fucking ages.  
Does that make the fact they were, put crudely, “born wrong”, go away?  
Nope.

Love that meme.

He’s so adorable when he tries

parody of: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/almost-politically-correct-redneck

>Implying they weren’t